But, it seems like the author of the article is perpetuating the ostrasizement (is that a word? doubtful) of gay black men from being able to identify with any sort of group....Or am I totally missing something?

Originally Posted by JillH410

Here's his overall argument. The gay rights movement has been focused on white middle/upper-class men (which is true). This means that gay marriage, like straight marriage, would be tainted by societal racism. Therefore, gay people should not be allowed to marry. He uses the "marriage is bad, so gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" argument I wrote about above.

On the other hand, some queer rights activists believe that marriage perpetuates a number of oppressive systems, including the gender binary, misogyny, people as commodities, etc. (And yes, "queer" is the correct and non-offensive term to use in this context.) They say that marriage should not be the main goal of the queer rights movement, because it represents everything that queer people have the opportunity to reject. However, I don't believe that most people who subscribe to this argument are against gay marriage, per se. They're just against the idea that the goal of the queer rights movement should be so bourgeois and traditional. They'd prefer something more revolutionary and less restrictive.

its easy to not be homophobic and not support gay marriage. i think automatically coming to that conclusion is a very elementary way of thinking.

Originally Posted by subbrock

When an issue is controversial and involves a lot of bigotry on one side, and someone on that side comes up with arguments that are very easily dismissed, then it's hard not to think that the arguments are just an attempt at hiding bigotry.

Also the biological argument that was cited earlier is something that I would consider to be homophobic. I have no idea if it's something you believe in, though.

I see what you are all saying about how no reason would be a good reason to not to support gay marriage to someone who's already decided to support it.

I'll admit, that's probably true and the reason I feel that way is that should gay marriage become legal, it will NOT affect anyone personally, and more importantly no one will lose any rights. Feeling uncomfortable about it is not a loss of rights. Should gay marriage be allowed straight people will be still able to marry and still enjoy the same rights and freedoms in marriage that gays have.

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well. I agree that civil marriage laws should not be based on peoples' religious beliefs or prejudices. Religious marriage laws are up to the authorities and the members of the religion in question. What people personally feel about the issue may not reflect what the government is doing, or what the religion is doing, however. This discussion seems to be focus on changing civil marriage laws and on that issue it is difficult to find a legitimate objection to why it should not be done, but there may well be personal objections or discomfort with it.

Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well. I agree that civil marriage laws should not be based on peoples' religious beliefs or prejudices. Religious marriage laws are up to the authorities and the members of the religion in question. What people personally feel about the issue may not reflect what the government is doing, or what the religion is doing, however. This discussion seems to be focus on changing civil marriage laws and on that issue it is difficult to find a legitimate objection to why it should not be done, but there may well be personal objections or discomfort with it.

Originally Posted by Amneris

i agree with this entire post.

i also agree with subbrock in that opposition to gay marriage and homophobia do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. i don't have a fear of polygomists. i understand why they feel their lifestyle is appropriate or normal for them, but i do not agree with their ideals and do not think it should be legal.

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well.

Originally Posted by Amneris

What's the difference?

Not opposing something is condoning it. You're allowing it to happen while standing by and watching.

Originally Posted by lauraloo

I'm thinking that whole quote : I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. (or something like that)

I'm of the opinion that thinking the civil marriage of a same sex couple should be against the law (not that you just merely disagree with it) is flat out discriminiation. We, as a country, are denying a population people the right to marry. This should not even BE a voters issue. It really does make me sick. I cannot wait for the day to be able to say "Are are a free nation" without adding "except" to the end.

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well.

Originally Posted by Amneris

What's the difference?

Not opposing something is condoning it. You're allowing it to happen while standing by and watching.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

(Not saying this situation is "evil" per se; substitute the word evil for "injustice" if it bothers you.)

Originally Posted by lauraloo

I mean that you (gy) can accept civil marriage for gays but personally not "approve" of it. People accept that there should be rights for common-law heterosexual couples and their children, in order to do justice, but they may still not think that it is an ideal situation in principle... and it doesn't really matter what someone personally THINKS if they are not opposing peoples' legal rights, when it comes down to it. Their views may be distasteful to some - others may not want to associate with them - but as long as those views are not doing a social injustice they are entitled to them.

Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali

I mean that you (gy) can accept civil marriage for gays but personally not "approve" of it. People accept that there should be rights for common-law heterosexual couples and their children, in order to do justice, but they may still not think that it is an ideal situation in principle... and it doesn't really matter what someone personally THINKS if they are not opposing peoples' legal rights, when it comes down to it. Their views may be distasteful to some - others may not want to associate with them - but as long as those views are not doing a social injustice they are entitled to them.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I understand what you've said above, but the difference from the examples you mentioned is that there is already a law supporting this injustice, and instead of fighting for justice, even though you don't agree with the issue, you (gy) allow the injustice to persist because you agree with the law's sentiments, even though it's discrimination to have those sentiments made into law. As you said, it's ok to not agree with the lifestyle as a citizen, but that doesn't make it ok for lawmakers to make it a legal issue.

Generally, what Trenell said; just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you shouldn't have your rights. In this case, allowing the law to persist is perpetuating injustice.

Their views may be distasteful to some - others may not want to associate with them - but as long as those views are not doing a social injustice they are entitled to them.

Originally Posted by Amneris

Agreed. I disagree with anyone who doesn't want same sex marriage legalized, but I don't doubt their right to hold that opinion. Nor would I want to live in a society that prohibited those people from speaking their opinion. (Nor would I want to live in a society that wouldn't allow me to roll my eyes at those people and call them bigots.)

But when the government takes that opinion and makes it law, that isn't ok with me. Same sex couples having the right to marry affects no one but the same sex couples.

"And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."Stolen.

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well. I agree that civil marriage laws should not be based on peoples' religious beliefs or prejudices. Religious marriage laws are up to the authorities and the members of the religion in question. What people personally feel about the issue may not reflect what the government is doing, or what the religion is doing, however. This discussion seems to be focus on changing civil marriage laws and on that issue it is difficult to find a legitimate objection to why it should not be done, but there may well be personal objections or discomfort with it.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I agree entirely with you. Even as I realize that we stand on opposite sides on this issue (if i recall from another thread. If i'm mistaken I'm sorry).

I think that people who argue religious reasons, should make sure that their church does not sanctify same sex marriages and stop thinking that religion has any place in law.

As a gay woman who does not have the right to marry, I can't imagine how my being married to another woman that I love imacts anyone. I am deeply hurt that I live somewhere that tells me that I somehow shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. I pay taxes and I work hard. Why can't I have the same legal rights?

If the catholic church doesn't want to marry me, on the other hand, their right. I won't get married there.

I just don't see how my being married hurts or affects anyone else. Especially if its *ok* for me to have a civil union. Why does my calling myself married hurt you (gy)?

Mix of 3s, thick, coarse, medium porosity

Current hair styling technique: rake with a scrunch at the end. (works with my coarse hair)

I mean that you (gy) can accept civil marriage for gays but personally not "approve" of it. People accept that there should be rights for common-law heterosexual couples and their children, in order to do justice, but they may still not think that it is an ideal situation in principle... and it doesn't really matter what someone personally THINKS if they are not opposing peoples' legal rights, when it comes down to it. Their views may be distasteful to some - others may not want to associate with them - but as long as those views are not doing a social injustice they are entitled to them.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I understand what you've said above, but the difference from the examples you mentioned is that there is already a law supporting this injustice, and instead of fighting for justice, even though you don't agree with the issue, you (gy) allow the injustice to persist because you agree with the law's sentiments, even though it's discrimination to have those sentiments made into law. As you said, it's ok to not agree with the lifestyle as a citizen, but that doesn't make it ok for lawmakers to make it a legal issue.

Generally, what Trenell said; just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you shouldn't have your rights. In this case, allowing the law to persist is perpetuating injustice.

Originally Posted by lauraloo

I don't think an ordinary citizen who is neutral or indifferent to a law is "allowing it to persist." It is the response of the lawmakers in the legislature to change the laws and the judiciary to do justice. Yes, citizens can and should have input and demand change when necessary, but realistically, you can't expect someone to make an effort to do so unless they feel strongly or passionately about an issue. With all the bad laws we have, you'd need a full-time job to address them all. Also, lawmakers also have a responsibility to take leadership even if the general public do not demand a change or want something different. If it's an issue of justice, they should do justice regardless of the consequences. I don't think the person who isn't out marching on the streets should be held responsible for their failure to do so.

Also, I would bet that at least some of the people posting here about how they want gay marriage haven't actively done anything to promote it besides sharing their opinions (which does have a small ripple effect.) Has every single one of them written their representative, taken petitions, written to the newspapers? If not, they're "allowing it to persist" as much as the person who is ambivalent or neutral on the topic and hasn't done so, even if their personal feelings are different.

Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali

I think there is a difference between not opposing a government law and in personally agreeing with something as well. I agree that civil marriage laws should not be based on peoples' religious beliefs or prejudices. Religious marriage laws are up to the authorities and the members of the religion in question. What people personally feel about the issue may not reflect what the government is doing, or what the religion is doing, however. This discussion seems to be focus on changing civil marriage laws and on that issue it is difficult to find a legitimate objection to why it should not be done, but there may well be personal objections or discomfort with it.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I agree entirely with you. Even as I realize that we stand on opposite sides on this issue (if i recall from another thread. If i'm mistaken I'm sorry).

I think that people who argue religious reasons, should make sure that their church does not sanctify same sex marriages and stop thinking that religion has any place in law.

As a gay woman who does not have the right to marry, I can't imagine how my being married to another woman that I love imacts anyone. I am deeply hurt that I live somewhere that tells me that I somehow shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. I pay taxes and I work hard. Why can't I have the same legal rights?

If the catholic church doesn't want to marry me, on the other hand, their right. I won't get married there.

I just don't see how my being married hurts or affects anyone else. Especially if its *ok* for me to have a civil union. Why does my calling myself married hurt you (gy)?

Originally Posted by curlymix

No problem - but no, we're not on opposite sides. I am completely in favour of civil gay marriage and I am in favour of the Church working through the issue as a community. I think ultimately, maybe well into the future, the Church WILL permit gay marriage and I don't think that would be a bad thing and I wish it didn't have to hurt so many people in the process but I do think it is important that the Church come to a consensus on its own terms.

Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali

I actually do have a, I can't call it a reason, thing I'm wondering about...If gay marriage becomes legalized...But I'm afraid to post about it here because people will bite my head off if I do, or if I compare it to the thing I want to.